Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Strommen commented on Mr. Bray's point that it is better to proceed with the <br />declaratory judgment now when there is one property owner. They need to do what is needed to <br />defend the City's position. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Council was to direct staff to proceed with a declaratory judgment action to <br />determine the priority of the Master Development Agreement and the following four additional <br />agreements on the Ramsey Town Center project: 1) 1 st Amendment to the Master Development <br />Agreement; 2) Parkland and Trail Agreement; 3) Parking Maintenance Agreement; 4) Option <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised at some point tonight or at a future meeting they will discuss the <br />legal strategy. <br /> <br />Mr. Bray provided an update on the status of the litigation on the Ramsey Town Center, LLC <br />Letter of Credit. He stated the City has moved for summary judgment action for an order of the <br />Court directing Patriot Bank to pay the $3 million. This will be heard on June 18, 2007. The <br />Court has 90 days to issue their ruling, although some judges take longer than 90 days. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig asked if this hearing can be postponed. <br /> <br />Mr. Bray replied this could be done, but he does not see a reason why the City would postpone it. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated in relation to the defaults of the Master <br />Developer, the City needs to come up with options to present in relation to park dedications for <br />properties like Crest View. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated this needs to be resolved sooner, rather then later. There are at <br />least two projects hanging in the balance because of this issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked if staff has any information in regards to Happy Days. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Nelson indicated she had a phone conversation with Mr. Bushman <br />and asked if that would seem to be a proposal the Bank would be open to. Mr. Bushman <br />indicated yes, and she needs to provide him with a letter and an indemnification agreement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised Council should now consider going into closed session. This is <br />available to the City at this time because Council discussed and found a need to enter into <br />litigation to bring a declaratory judgment action to sort out the issues regarding priority of the <br />Master Development Agreement, the 1 st Amendment, etc. As Council knows, and he has <br />advised consistently, they have to very sparingly close a meeting and are under strict obligations <br />to not close meetings; the exception is to close a meeting. In consideration of that, staff has <br />looked at Minnesota Court of Appeals Law of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch vs. Jim Dehen filed in <br />March of 2005 in which the Court of Appeals indicated there was a reason and permitted a <br />closed meetin g dealing with attorney/client privileges. There was a need for candid open <br />discussion regarding matters which could affect litigation including prosecution and proceeding <br />on that prosecution strategy. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / June 5, 2007 <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />